A professor at the University of California recently gave a middle school presentation in which he claimed the earth has too many people and proposed a reduction of the population through vegetarianism and controlling human fertility.

Professor Richard Cardullo, a professor of biology at the University of California  Riverside (UCR), told a group of seventh grade students that the environments well-being was in jeopardy if we dont do anything about population.

If we want to decrease our population, we can do it through any number of ways, he said.

Most developed countries are below replacement level in births and have been that way for a generation. Even China is not increasing its population through birth, but through increased lifespan. The urbanization of the developing world going on right now puts people into cramped high rises with little room for large families, so the trend will continue in the developing world for the foreseeable future.

Thats one form of birth control, but probably not a good one, Cardullo said, then chuckled. So ultimately the World Health Organization argued against using it. But interestingly enough, there are countries in the world (such as China now investigating) using it as a permanent method for controlling fertility in males, which is an option.

What the Hell?

What if I WANT to have more than 1.5 kids your Totalitarian Putz?

What about LIBERTY!?!?

The key word is "Control"

That is what this ignorant professor wants.

It's not about the earth or justice, its about controlling you.

I will keep breeding you POS and I hope you take a long walk off a pier.

This guy sounds like a follower of anti-humanist lizard expert Dr. Eric Pianka (as reported by Forrest Mims, Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science):

“I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka, the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

“This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us.

“One of Pianka’s earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

“Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

“Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it’s too late.

“Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

“He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

“Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

“AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola, because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

“After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

“With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.

“After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.

“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.” So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third’s of the world’s population.

“How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.

“When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.”

*********

I will add as a final note that every single person in that room who applauded what he had said represents a dangerous threat to humanity itself. Because of their academic credentials, some of them may be in a position to bring about horrific disasters with biological weapons.

While they are too naive to promulgate a weapon that will accomplish what they desire, they could murder millions or even a billion innocent people.

This is an intolerable threat, as much as a fanatic demanding the use of thermonuclear bombs to people who might very well obtain access to such weapons.

Yes. The world in which everyone could live in a four-bedroom house on a standard suburban lot, for a family of five, in the area of Texas and Oklahoma, and use the more fertile parts of the world for food and stuff.

Iirc, you have quite a large plot for just yourself ... and why shouldn’t you?

A member of my family, a flaming liberal, thinks the same way. I tell him that I agree with him. Then I ask him who he thinks would win most elections if there were less poor and minorities to vote for Democrats? Yup..

Great idea, reduce the number of unwanted or accidental children, reduce the number of baby killings.

Must have valid permit to have a child signed onto by the mother and father. Stiff penalties for pregnancy without license, no abortion until penalty or jail time is served. Babies born under these circumstances to be put up for adoption.

I have fathered 5 children and none of these rules would have stopped me because my wife and I knew what we were doing and we wanted all of these kids.

Another solution: tie injectible or implantable birth control to welfare benefits. If you cannot feed your family, house them or take care of them, the female head of household and every female between 12 and 42 living there receive a Norplant injection. The contraceptive implant comes out when you no longer use food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, Section 8 housing or other welfare programs.
No abortions. No forced adoptions. Dependent population growth, most illegitimate births and most teen pregnancies are prevented.
Return to the work force, you gain the right to have kids. Or if you are married to a man who works, and no longer require welfare benefits, then you can have the implant taken out.

Dear Professor :The next time you decide to take a long hot bath remember it’s a triple dose of sleeping pills washed down with wine & the razor blade goes “Down the Road “ not “Across the Street”. Lead by example you socialist shitstain!

There is a science to approximating but that is another thread for another day.

You wouldn't be an engineer by chance? I attended an engineering college when your personal calculator was made of bamboo, was 10" long, and had 3 1/2 digit accuracy. One of my math classes included "estimating" (approximating) and significant figures.

My quibble wasn't with the "rounding" but the magnitude was off by three orders of magnitude on the land area of Texas. They have ranches bigger than 270 square miles. The actual population density was "close enough for government work."

Regards, GtG

37
posted on 09/20/2012 10:06:09 AM PDT
by Gandalf_The_Gray
(I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)

LOL!!! I meant 270,000 sq miles. I thought I used the “K” to make it in thousands.

Hey, my rounding was only off by A THOUSAND (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it).

Thanks for checking my figures. I have messed up before when doing a similar calculation — that is why I showed my work.

FWIIW: France is about 210,000 square miles (smaller than Texas). We could put all the population of France in the DFW Metroplex (14,500 square miles). But WHY? The last thing we need here is a bunch of lazy, smelly frogs.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.